This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Of course...the fact that people like the president held those same views until he decided he needed campaign cash in 2012 is completely lost on you.

Meh. I used to be against gay marriage out of ignorance. My views evolved just as Obama's did. It's not a big deal. Why do you care hiding behind "Independent" yet espousing Christian conservative Republican views?

Why should I or any normal functioning modern person care what other people do in the privacy of their homes be it smoke weed or be gay? Why would I or anybody seriously care unless you have nothing better to care about in life?

There are more than three cases which hold that marriage is a fundamental right

Well, duh, of course there is? Is said there are three well known cases.

States were not allowed to regulate who could marry outside of [their] race.

Actually they were. So, as an example, before Loving, ANY state could have allowed for interracial marriage, but none did until, well you know.

SCOTUS has ruled that laws forbidding polygamy are constitutional

They have? Where? And if they did, then this majority ruling just overturned that on both broad and narrow grounds!

There is no "other kind of marriage" that is relevant here. We're discussing civil marriage and civil marriage alone

Right, and Ginsberg said that civil marriage, and domestic relations and the authority to regulate it by the states, is not to be disturbed, well until now.

And as far as the courts limiting the power of states to regulate marriage, the court is unable to do so arbitrarily. Your implication that this decision was legally unjustified and arbitrary is contradicted by the scores of pages of text in this decision in which they demonstrate the constitutional requirements for not allowing states to prohibit SSM.

Contradicted by 5 Justices of which 4 justices spent considerable time telling us why those other five were morons..

Tim-

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Just out: U S S.Ct. rules that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, going further than just ruling that states have to recognize it, if performed in a state where it's legal.

This has an impact on the 14 states that have passed laws banning it.

NOTE: The ruling was NOT just that states have to recognize it. The ruling is that it is now LEGAL, being constitutionally protected. It COULD HAVE made the ruling more narrow, but it did not. It went all the way. The matter is now settled. Gay marriage is legal, like interracial marriage is.

NBC

Whether or not you're a supporter of same sex marriage, this ruling makes sense. It should not be up to the govt to define the relationships of two consenting adults.

I think they're just as silly considering their faith in a non-existent entity is a silly reason to be against those who don't believe in that fairy tale or who have other lifestyle. So what? Live and let live.

Let's be honest. It boils down to a lot of fat white conservative guys who aren't getting laid. That's what it boils down to and we all know it. Fat white conservative men can't get the women they want so they band together under the guise of religion to seek revenge against anyone who can or who has another world view.

I'm not the slightest bit religious, but I do respect people of faith regardless what I personally believe. And I have zero objection to any two or more people getting married and/or entering into a social relationship contract. My only problem is with the government rewarding the holders of their paper.

And I would note, just anecdotally, that the vast majority of people I've seen in the media participating in same sex marriage ceremonies have been fat white men and women, their ideology not apparent. So if you think all the gay people getting married are Brad Pitts and Scarlett Johansens, I'll repeat - you need to get out more.

A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

The potential tax fraud and complications to inheritance laws are some pretty compelling reasons.

No more potential for tax fraud than there is today. Inheritance laws apply as your estate, minus a will, is divided equally between your spouses.

Neither reason applies to polygamy, and conincidentally, the majority opinion mentions "compelling state reasons" exactly 0 times because there is no compelling state reasons to restrict "a fundamental right".

You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?

It can affect their children and the govt has a legitimate interest in protecting children

I notice that you keep making a reference to "study after study" without actually providing a citation to any study, let along multiples. On the other hand, here is a study published very recently in the Social Science Research journal that found there was no evidence that children of same sex couples are negatively impacted.

I addressed that in my post. But if you want to go by the most recent 'study' that is reported over and over and over in the media until the gullible are convinced that yes, this is the absolute truth and consensus, then sure. You can present just about anybody's results, no matter how small the sampling, as the gospel truth for just about anything.

Or we can go with what I said and agree that while single parents and gay parents can and do a great job raising kids, having a loving mom and dad in the home is still the best circumstance for raising kids.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

It can affect their children and the govt has a legitimate interest in protecting children

Good luck proving that having a second husband or wife negatively affects children. The majority opinion never mentions respecting or allowing legitimate state interests to override the fundamental right to marriage.

It is really quite ironic that someone named "Logicman" keeps relying upon a 2000 year old book from several authors, edited and translated by thousands of others, and multiple unsupportable assertions (like a stated assertion of what ****ing SATAN likes) to make his argument.

It always seems that way to those unfortunate souls who have never spent any quality time studying the Bible.

"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown